Case 14-3899, Document 116-1, 10/20/2015, 1622988, Page1 of 6

143899
YaleUniversityv.Konowaloff

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT

SUMMARYORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTS
LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHENCITINGASUMMARYORDERINADOCUMENTFILEDWITHTHISCOURT,APARTYMUSTCITEEITHER
THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER). A PARTY CITING A
SUMMARYORDERMUSTSERVEACOPYOFITONANYPARTYNOTREPRESENTEDBYCOUNSEL.

AtastatedtermoftheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSecond
Circuit,heldattheThurgoodMarshallUnitedStatesCourthouse,40Foley
Square,intheCityofNewYork,onthe20thdayofOctober,twothousandfifteen.

PRESENT: CHESTERJ.STRAUB,
RICHARDC.WESLEY,

DEBRAANNLIVINGSTON,

CircuitJudges.
______________________

YALEUNIVERSITY,NIGHTCAF,Property,aPainting,inrem,

PlaintiffsCounterDefendantsAppellees,

v.

143899

PIERREKONOWALOFF,

DefendantCounterClaimantAppellant.*

______________________

TheClerkoftheCourtisrespectfullydirectedtoamendtheofficialcaptionasnoted
above.
*

Case 14-3899, Document 116-1, 10/20/2015, 1622988, Page2 of 6

FORAPPELLANT:

FORAPPELLEES:

ALLANGERSON,AGInternationalLaw,Washington,
DC.
JONATHANM.FREIMAN(BenjaminM.Daniels,on
brief),WigginandDanaLLP,NewHaven,CT.

AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforDistrictofConnecticut
(AlvinW.Thompson,Judge).

UPONDUECONSIDERATION,ITISHEREBYORDERED,
ADJUDGEDANDDECREEDthatthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtis
AFFIRMED.
In1918,theRussianBolshevikrevolutionarygovernmentissueddecrees
expropriatingthecollectionsofthreemajorRussianartcollectors,includingIvan
AbramovichMorozov,PlaintiffAppellantPierreKonowaloffsgreat
grandfather.AmongthesepaintingswereMadameCzanneintheConservatoryby
PaulCzanneandTheNightCafbyVincentvanGogh.Theformerresidesatthe
MetropolitanMuseumofArtinNewYorkCityandwasthesubjectofthis
CourtsdecisioninKonowaloffv.MetropolitanMuseumofArt,702F.3d140(2dCir.
2012)[hereinafterKonowaloffI].Thiscaseconcernsthedisputeoverownership
ofthelatterpaintingbetweentheplaintiffinthatcaseandYaleUniversity,in
whosepossessionTheNightCaf(thePainting)hasbeensince1961.We
assumethepartiesfamiliaritywiththehistoricalfacts,asexplainedinKonowaloff

Case 14-3899, Document 116-1, 10/20/2015, 1622988, Page3 of 6

I,andwiththerecordbelow,whichwereferenceonlyasnecessarytoexplainour
decision.
KonowalofffirstappealsfromtheDistrictCourtspublishedopinion,
datedMarch20,2014,grantingYaleUniversitysmotionforsummaryjudgment
onhiscounterclaims.SeeYaleUniv.v.Konowaloff,5F.Supp.3d237(D.Conn.
2014).HearguesprincipallythattheDistrictCourterredinconcludingthatthe
actofstatedoctrine,asappliedinKonowaloffI,barsthisaction,becausehehas
nowabandonedanyclaimtothePaintingonthegroundsthattheconfiscation
ofculturalpropertyin1918wasillegal.AppellantBr.6.Thisargumentfailsfor
tworeasons.
First,despitehischaracterizationofhisclaimstothisCourt,Konowaloffs
amendedanswerandcounterclaimsintheDistrictCourtarerifewithreferences
totheexpropriationbeinganillegalactoftheft.Second,evenifweweretotake
hisstatementofabandonmenttothisCourtasbindingasweareentitledtodo,
seePurgessv.Sharrock,33F.3d134,144(2dCir.1994),theresultisthat
Konowaloffhasacceptedthevalidityofthe1918expropriationandthus
admittedanylegalclaimorinteresthehasinthePaintingwasextinguishedat
thattime.AbsentaclaimtoanexistinginterestinthePainting,Konowaloffhas

Case 14-3899, Document 116-1, 10/20/2015, 1622988, Page4 of 6

nostandingtoassertanyofthecounterclaimsbroughtintheDistrictCourt.See
KonowaloffI,702F.3dat147(holdingKonowaloffhadnostandingtochallenge
anysaleorothertreatmentofthe[Czanne]Paintingafter1918);seealso,e.g.,
Loewenbergv.Wallace,147Conn.689,692(1960)(observingthatplaintiffneedsto
allegelegaltitleorsomelegalinterestinpropertytohavestandinginquiettitle
action).Thus,theDistrictCourtappropriatelygrantedYalesmotionfor
summaryjudgmentonKonowaloffscounterclaims.
KonowaloffnextarguesthattheDistrictCourtshouldhaveconsideredthe
questionoftitleregardlessoftheactofstatedoctrine.Inpart,Konowaloff
contendsthattheDistrictCourterredingrantingYalesmotionforvoluntary
dismissalofitsaffirmativeclaimswithoutprejudiceamotiontowhichhe
consented,seeJointAppx329.Thoughneitherpartyhaschallengedour
jurisdictiontohearthisappeal,wehaveanindependentobligationtoconsider
thepresenceorabsenceofsubjectmatterjurisdictionsuasponte.Josephv.Leavitt,
465F.3d87,89(2dCir.2006).
OurCircuitisclearthatwegenerallydonothavejurisdictionoverappeals
fromplaintiffsfollowingavoluntarydismissalwithoutprejudice.See,e.g.,Rabbi
JacobJosephSch.v.ProvinceofMendoza,425F.3d207,210(2dCir.2005);Empire

Case 14-3899, Document 116-1, 10/20/2015, 1622988, Page5 of 6

VolkswagenInc.v.WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.,814F.2d90,94(2dCir.1987).We
havenotaddressedwhetherjurisdictionlieswhenadefendantconsentstosuch
adismissal.Cf.Aliv.Fed.Ins.Co.,719F.3d83,89(2dCir.2013)(Becausethe
invitationtodismissmustbedesignedonlytosecureimmediateappellate
reviewofanadversedecision,partiescannotappealajointstipulationto
voluntarydismissal,enteredunconditionallybythecourtpursuanttoa
settlementagreement.(internalquotationmarksomitted)).However,in
comparablecircumstances,apriorpanelofthisCourtconcludedthatwherea
partyscounterclaimsbecamemootfollowingsummaryjudgment,voluntary
dismissalwithoutprejudicedidnotdepriveourCourtofappellatejurisdiction.
SeeAnalectLLCv.FifthThirdBancorp,380F.Appx54,5556(2dCir.2010)
(summaryorder).There,ashere,thedismissedclaimpresentednoactual
controversybecausethepriorsummaryjudgmentorderresolvedthedispute.
Seeid.at56.ThoughAnalectisofcoursenotbindingprecedent,weagreewithits
reasoningandthereforesimilarlyconcludewepossessjurisdictioninthiscase.
AlthoughKonowaloffsconsentdoesnotdepriveusofjurisdiction,itdoes
preventhimfromchallengingtheentryofvoluntarydismissal.Partieswho
consenttoanorderoftheDistrictCourtcannotbeheardtoargueerroron

Case 14-3899, Document 116-1, 10/20/2015, 1622988, Page6 of 6

appeal.Cf.Zahorikv.CornellUniv.,729F.2d85,91(2dCir.1984).Inanyevent,
wereviewforabuseofdiscretionordersgrantingvoluntarydismissal,seeKwan
v.Schlein,634F.3d224,230(2dCir.2011),andinlightofourconclusionabovein
favorofYaleonKonowaloffsmirrorimagecounterclaims,wecannotconclude
thatvoluntarydismissalofYalesquiettitleactionconstitutedsuchanabusein
thiscase.
WehaveconsideredKonowaloffsremainingargumentsandfindthemto
bewithoutmerit.Forthereasonsstatedabove,thejudgmentoftheDistrict
CourtisAFFIRMED.

FORTHECOURT:
CatherineOHaganWolfe,Clerk